It was covered in one of the books (I forget if it was 1633, 1634, or Ring of Fire I) that there was the Cogden Library that was selling info and the National/State Library is happy to research any topic for interested parties. Info about the future that would have been would be a very valuable trade good, no matter who you are trading with.

HB of CJ wrote:Yep....I can guess just fine and I do not want to give anything away from us reading yet another fine "Ring Of Fire" story. The only problem is how does this "Power That Be" in the making get a hold of the Grantville future history books in the first place? Humm. Curious.

Stranger things have happened in history. It would be more or less kinda easy to get to the inland Sacramento River area of alternate history California USA. Getting home would be much more difficult. Prevailing ocean winds, currents and seasons. HB of CJ (old coot) Lt.Cm.

HB of CJ wrote:Yep....I can guess just fine and I do not want to give anything away from us reading yet another fine "Ring Of Fire" story. The only problem is how does this "Power That Be" in the making get a hold of the Grantville future history books in the first place? Humm. Curious.

Stranger things have happened in history. It would be more or less kinda easy to get to the inland Sacramento River area of alternate history California USA. Getting home would be much more difficult. Prevailing ocean winds, currents and seasons. HB of CJ (old coot) Lt.Cm.

Perhaps the shogan of japan will send a scouting force to California...

Tenshinai wrote:But is it really stupid? IF the native populations are given a heads up, then control of N.America will not be anywhere nearly as easy as historically.

I don't know, Tenshinai. Please take into account that this response will deal mostly with our real history. If I make any comparisons with or allusions to the 16xx universe, I'll make it clear that I'm doing so.

Remember that there were several reasons why the European settlers managed to conquer North America. One was obviously technological superiority. Another was population pressure. A third was the fact that American Natives simply had no immunity to a lot of introduced diseases. Then there was the difference in economic development and industrial capacity. And probably the most important was socio-political sophistication.

By the time serious European penetration and settlement of North America began, the European states that were driving that process had been in existence for a very long time already. Centuries, in fact, and in the case of France and England, almost a full millennium.

The same was true of their systems of government, meaning that they had well-established and generally popularly-accepted ways of exercising state authority and power. They had well-established ways of levying income for the state, of deciding what to do with that income, and of implementing those decisions.

Their 'civil society' and 'private economies' were also quite sophisticated, meaning that the state's economy was for the most part privately-driven and money-based, instead of the barter system that was prevalent in pre-colonial North America. You won't BELIEVE how long it took for the ancient Middle East to make the transition from a barter economy to a fully money-based economy - thousands of years, and I do mean thousands of years. Europe did not take quite that long, because there it was simply a matter of replacing the barter economy with the newly-introduced money economy, not the invention of a totally new system of exchange. But still, it did take a long time, even in Europe, and an even longer time for an effective and dependable credit-based system of exchange to develop.

Moreover, in Europe we already had the beginnings of the industrial revolution happening. Most people think it started with the steam revolution, but that's simply not true. Printing was what truly started the industrial revolution, even if it did take several centuries to really gather steam (if you'll excuse the pun). Still, new innovations and developments very rarely just sprout up out of nothing - almost always, innovation involves new applications of pre-existing knowledge and methods. As such, it can be argued fairly convincingly that the rudimentary industrial revolution that was taking place in Europe at the time of the incipient colonization of North America had been preceded by literally centuries of economic, technological and industrial developments.

Then there was the difference in population density between the two continents. North America was unbelievably sparsely inhabited, for such a fertile and resource-rich land. In comparison, Europe was most definitely overpopulated. Her surplus population HAD to go somewhere, and although many left for more distant lands such as South America, southern and eastern Africa and Australia, most took the easiest emigration route - straight across the Atlantic. Why go further away, when North America with its vast space, low indigenous population and incredibly fertile lands and rich resources was virtually right next door to Europe? There was absolutely no way that the indigenous people of North America could keep the flood of European immigrants at bay, even had their societies been organized and sophisticated enough to make such an attempt.

Lastly, there was the level of technological development. Remember that NONE of the indigenous societies of the Americas had ever discovered iron or how to work with it. That was a crucial difference. Europe had done so, and had taken ironworking to truly amazing levels, in comparison. Even in Africa, where ironworking was known and widespread, the level of ironworking was far more primitive than it was in Europe - even though a thousand years and more had passed from the time when the ancient Bantu had first learned the secret of melting iron ore.

Even if the indigenous societies of North America had been inclined to change themselves into states that would be better organized and better prepared to resist European encroachment, they simply would not have had enough time to do so. They simply did not have enough time to make the necessary adjustment on the emotional and intellectual level to enable them to make a successful cultural, social, political and economic transition to the kind of organized states that would have made long-term resistance and survival possible.

Unfortunately, the same factors are present in the other timeline. There is just no chance whatsoever for Native American societies to make that sort of transition, on all levels, before the tidal wave of European immigration overwhelm them the same way it happened in our timeline.

Idealism is always good, but it simply cannot ignore the facts of reality.

Remember that there were several reasons why the European settlers managed to conquer North America. One was obviously technological superiority. Another was population pressure. A third was the fact that American Natives simply had no immunity to a lot of introduced diseases. Then there was the difference in economic development and industrial capacity. And probably the most important was socio-political sophistication.

Ah yes, but the single biggest reason was "divide and conquer", enough of the natives were temporarily or longterm induced to alliances with europeans or infighting among themselves.

If records of the once future is spread during the mid/early 17th century, before europeans become truly established in North America, aside from a few areas that were truly settled early, most of the continent is going to be a very dangerous place for settlers.

And don´t forget that much of North America could only be settled with the acceptance or even active help from natives, dozens, possibly hundreds of early settlements would literally have starved to death without the natives taking pity on them.

Socio-political sophistication? That´s a matter of opinion.

The biggest difference was that the natives were used to deals being deals. And calling the ability to not care about keeping your word to be sophisticated, well i´d rather be hopelessly lacking in sophistication then.

Also, the ridiculous "noble savage" myth is exactly that, a big ugly myth to excuse nastiness. The natives were definitely not "unsophisticated".

While you are not wrong in the background, i believe you underestimate extremly just how fragile the european holds in north america was in the 17th century.

There was absolutely no way that the indigenous people of North America could keep the flood of European immigrants at bay, even had their societies been organized and sophisticated enough to make such an attempt.

Even if the natives do nothing but NOT assisting the newcomers, the effects would be MASSIVE.

Early settlements almost invariably survived, only thanks to trade and even outright charity from the natives.

European superiority? Yeah right, then why did they fail so utterly in the basic task of growing food, or hunting it or fishing for it?

You are effectively somewhat mixing up conditions of the 17th and 19th century, when the truly largescale immigration happened.

With non-friendly or partially hostile (or even just less friendly/more suspicious) natives in the 17th century, hundreds of settlements will fail to survive and provide the "beachhead" for further expansion.

At that point, European powers either have to start actively supporting colonisation rather than just allow individual "adventures".Or colonisation will be delayed by hundreds of years.

Because what you fail to account for, is that all that power Europe had at it´s disposal, almost none of it was "free to use" elsewhere, or they would risk loosing back home instead. Serious, powerful and statesponsored colonisation with actual military ability of any noticeable force, it was the exception.

And it should be noted that even those expeditions, IF they ran afoul of the local natives, the colonies usually DIED, commonly they died QUICKLY.

A decent example is the attempted colonisation of Tobago my own nation tried.Essentially wiped out by natives, and that was in 1733!

The history of St Lucia also shows how tenous the hold of even strong expiditions can be, Thomas Warners attempt at securing the island in 1664, he brought over a thousand troops, and despite no real fights with the natives, 2 years later he only had 89 left.

The colony had before that been more or less obliterated by natives twice already.

Even if the indigenous societies of North America had been inclined to change themselves into states that would be better organized and better prepared to resist European encroachment, they simply would not have had enough time to do so. They simply did not have enough time to make the necessary adjustment on the emotional and intellectual level to enable them to make a successful cultural, social, political and economic transition to the kind of organized states that would have made long-term resistance and survival possible.

A highly questionable assertion. Like i noted above, early colonisation was exceptionally fragile, if the natives simply do nothing but avoid helping any settlers, over 90% of the colonisation will simply die out by itself within the first 10 years.

This means the next generation of settlements will again be initial beachheads again, which once more means even nonaggressive resistance will kill off 50-90%.

And if you then get facts across well enough that a majority of natives act resolutely to oppose new settlements, the vast majority of the coastlines will be far too dangerous for anything that doesn´t include large formations of actual troops.

Which means most independent and private colonisation will never happen, because it´s literally suicidal.

Which means a European nation will have to attempt largescale settlements with troops, troops needed in Europe already.

The natives may very well not "win", but if the number of Europeans settled in North America is less than 100k by, lets say 1800?By then, largescale native nations will be a fact.

Unfortunately, the same factors are present in the other timeline. There is just no chance whatsoever for Native American societies to make that sort of transition, on all levels, before the tidal wave of European immigration overwhelm them the same way it happened in our timeline.

Idealism is always good, but it simply cannot ignore the facts of reality.

I believe you should recheck your knowledge about N.A. natives however, there were some degree of largescale nationbuilding well before Europeans arrived.

Remember that there were several reasons why the European settlers managed to conquer North America. One was obviously technological superiority. Another was population pressure. A third was the fact that American Natives simply had no immunity to a lot of introduced diseases. Then there was the difference in economic development and industrial capacity. And probably the most important was socio-political sophistication.

Ah yes, but the single biggest reason was "divide and conquer", enough of the natives were temporarily or longterm induced to alliances with europeans or infighting among themselves.

If records of the once future is spread during the mid/early 17th century, before europeans become truly established in North America, aside from a few areas that were truly settled early, most of the continent is going to be a very dangerous place for settlers.

And don´t forget that much of North America could only be settled with the acceptance or even active help from natives, dozens, possibly hundreds of early settlements would literally have starved to death without the natives taking pity on them.

Socio-political sophistication? That´s a matter of opinion.

The biggest difference was that the natives were used to deals being deals. And calling the ability to not care about keeping your word to be sophisticated, well i´d rather be hopelessly lacking in sophistication then.

Also, the ridiculous "noble savage" myth is exactly that, a big ugly myth to excuse nastiness. The natives were definitely not "unsophisticated".

While you are not wrong in the background, i believe you underestimate extremly just how fragile the european holds in north america was in the 17th century.

There was absolutely no way that the indigenous people of North America could keep the flood of European immigrants at bay, even had their societies been organized and sophisticated enough to make such an attempt.

Even if the natives do nothing but NOT assisting the newcomers, the effects would be MASSIVE.

Early settlements almost invariably survived, only thanks to trade and even outright charity from the natives.

European superiority? Yeah right, then why did they fail so utterly in the basic task of growing food, or hunting it or fishing for it?

You are effectively somewhat mixing up conditions of the 17th and 19th century, when the truly largescale immigration happened.

With non-friendly or partially hostile (or even just less friendly/more suspicious) natives in the 17th century, hundreds of settlements will fail to survive and provide the "beachhead" for further expansion.

At that point, European powers either have to start actively supporting colonisation rather than just allow individual "adventures".Or colonisation will be delayed by hundreds of years.

Because what you fail to account for, is that all that power Europe had at it´s disposal, almost none of it was "free to use" elsewhere, or they would risk loosing back home instead. Serious, powerful and statesponsored colonisation with actual military ability of any noticeable force, it was the exception.

And it should be noted that even those expeditions, IF they ran afoul of the local natives, the colonies usually DIED, commonly they died QUICKLY.

A decent example is the attempted colonisation of Tobago my own nation tried.Essentially wiped out by natives, and that was in 1733!

The history of St Lucia also shows how tenous the hold of even strong expiditions can be, Thomas Warners attempt at securing the island in 1664, he brought over a thousand troops, and despite no real fights with the natives, 2 years later he only had 89 left.

The colony had before that been more or less obliterated by natives twice already.

Even if the indigenous societies of North America had been inclined to change themselves into states that would be better organized and better prepared to resist European encroachment, they simply would not have had enough time to do so. They simply did not have enough time to make the necessary adjustment on the emotional and intellectual level to enable them to make a successful cultural, social, political and economic transition to the kind of organized states that would have made long-term resistance and survival possible.

A highly questionable assertion. Like i noted above, early colonisation was exceptionally fragile, if the natives simply do nothing but avoid helping any settlers, over 90% of the colonisation will simply die out by itself within the first 10 years.

This means the next generation of settlements will again be initial beachheads again, which once more means even nonaggressive resistance will kill off 50-90%.

And if you then get facts across well enough that a majority of natives act resolutely to oppose new settlements, the vast majority of the coastlines will be far too dangerous for anything that doesn´t include large formations of actual troops.

Which means most independent and private colonisation will never happen, because it´s literally suicidal.

Which means a European nation will have to attempt largescale settlements with troops, troops needed in Europe already.

The natives may very well not "win", but if the number of Europeans settled in North America is less than 100k by, lets say 1800?By then, largescale native nations will be a fact.

Unfortunately, the same factors are present in the other timeline. There is just no chance whatsoever for Native American societies to make that sort of transition, on all levels, before the tidal wave of European immigration overwhelm them the same way it happened in our timeline.

Idealism is always good, but it simply cannot ignore the facts of reality.

I believe you should recheck your knowledge about N.A. natives however, there were some degree of largescale nationbuilding well before Europeans arrived.

First of all, Native American assistance and cooperation did make European colonization attempts easier than they would have been otherwise, but that does not mean that without such assistance and cooperation colonization would have been impossible. ALL it means is that such attempts would have been more difficult and would have required a greater investment of resources, but not nearly enough more difficult to discourage European settlement.

You argue that I am confusing 17th and 19th century conditions. I am not.

Within just a few decades from the founding of the first successful European colonies in North America, Europeans had acquired population equity with the Native American populations in their immediate surrounds, and by the time the last of the thirteen colonies were formally proclaimed, European numbers were FAR greater than the Native American populations within each of the colonies - without any truly widespread population displacement taking place. That came later only, after the colonies were granted internal self-government and the settlers started to pester their colonial governments to seize native-held land.

Coming back to how difficult it would be for European colonies to survive without native assistance, you forget that although many settlements did fail without such assistance or because of active native resistance, plenty of others managed not only to survive but to actively thrive without native cooperation.

Furthermore, rumours and actual factual reports about the vast, sparsely-inhabited and rich lands in North America had been filtering back to the European populace for a long time - presenting far too much temptation to not only the European masses but also their governments to be put off by any concerns for the potential threat posed by the indigenous population.

In fact, several governments - England and France most strongly among them - WERE actively encouraging, and in some cases, actively making resources available for, emigration to the New World. That was partly because of their wish to rid themselves of their undesirables, partly because of their desire to profit from the riches offered by the new lands, and partly because of the already-emerging push for imperial prestige.

Colonization was going to happen in our timeline, whether there was active resistance to the effort or not by Native Americans, and with all the pressure behind it from European overpopulation, state imperialism and pure bloodyminded commercial greed, there was simply no way for the indigenous peoples of North America to offer any successful resistance whatsoever.

Yes, there were state-forming going on among Native Americans, but those processes were basically still in their infancy. The internal psychological and intellectual transition that eventually would have enabled a thorough transition to the kind of industrialized, organized societies that could have made resistance to European encroachment possible, simply had not had time to really happen.

Now to the 16xx universe. The same realities re population, level of political organization, technological development, etc still apply, but after the arrival of Grantville the temptation posed by the rich lands of North America had just become utterly irresistabe to European states, commercial enterprises and individuals alike. Remember that with Grantville there now came not only knowledge of the future but also concrete confirmation of the rumours and reports regarding the New World's vast riches.

No way would any forward-looking monarch or minister be able to resist the temptation such confirmation and such knowledge of the future posed. We've already seen this with Richelieu's swindling of Charles.

Grantville certainly didn't have the capacity to prevent any state-driven efforts by other European states to take advantage of the knowledge it had inadvertedly brought with it. And despite all of its immense power, neither does the USE.

In fact, the USE is already finding itself in a situation in which it has to undertake a certain amount of colonization of its own, if it is to gain access to the resources its nascent industrial revolution and military requires so vitally.

The best we can hope for is that any USE colonization projects would be undertaken in a much more ethical manner than was the case in our history, and that such ethical colonization would have clear enough advantages that the other European states that are involved in the colonization of North America (or will inevitably become involved therein) will opt to follow the USE's example.

But European colonization of North America WILL happen, and the native peoples of North America will be just as unable to stop European settlement as they were in our timeline, because the same fundamental factors are in place in the other timeline as were so in ours.

There are, however, other regions of the world where successful European colonization would not be so inevitable an outcome as in North America - IF, and I wish I can make that 'if' even larger, the local rulers in those regions act immediately upon receipt of the knowledge Grantville brought with it from the future.

I don't think the book has been published yet, but one of the forthcoming novels deal (partly or fully?) with exactly such a development happening in Japan.

But there are other potential contenders - mostly in Asia, but also in some parts of Africa. The Asian contenders are obvious: the Subcontinent, Indochina, the Great Archipelago, Iran and China. The African states with the potential to successfully resist European colonization can be found mainly along the Gold Coast and the Bay of Biafra, in the western Sahel and on the eastern coast of the continent among the Swahili city states. Oh, let's not forget Axum (Abyssinia), which did in fact manage to resist successfully in our timeline.

hanuman wrote:Yes, there were state-forming going on among Native Americans, but those processes were basically still in their infancy. The internal psychological and intellectual transition that eventually would have enabled a thorough transition to the kind of industrialized, organized societies that could have made resistance to European encroachment possible, simply had not had time to really happen.

Oh please... Infancy? There were what could be called nations in existance in North America that may have predated the creation of England and France as specific nations.

Did they work the same way? No, and how not surprising is that...

And they don´t NEED modern industrialised society to resist.

The normal "defence" of a colony tended to be a handful of people with muskets who actually knew how to shoot, and maybe a few more handfuls who could shoot(just not hit all that much).

You don´t seem to realise that bows were still a superior weapon over the musket when neither side carries armour.

And that when your primary weapon takes up to two MINUTES to reload, for a single shot, then hand to hand weapons are actually a lot MORE effective than "modern weapons".

hanuman wrote:Coming back to how difficult it would be for European colonies to survive without native assistance, you forget that although many settlements did fail without such assistance or because of active native resistance, plenty of others managed not only to survive but to actively thrive without native cooperation.

"plenty of others"? That´s a miniscule minority. Less than 1 in 5 colonies that did not have trade or support from the natives survived. And that´s probably a severe overstatement as there were very few colonies that did not trade with natives at all. But if you include those with the least trade, maybe you can manage that 1/5 rate.

Less than 1 in 20 colonies survived with nearby hostile natives.

Heck, even colonies WITH active support from the natives only had a success rate around something like 50-60%!

Again, you do not seem to be at all aware of how fragile the colonisation was. It was not until the 19th century that someone could leave Europe for North America, and reasonably expect to still be alive 5 years later, beacuse 4/5 were not.

Death rates of >95% during the first 5 years for a colony was not rare. Above 80% was relatively normal.

For the simple reason that the majority of Europeans going there had no freakin clue how to survive!

Many natives got their first firearms in trade for FOOD.

Heck, a lot of natives even got "modern stuff" in trade for stone age tools, because few colonists thought to bring someone along that could repair their own tools when they broke.

Simple fact of history, most colonies died out within 5 years. Something like >2/3s in 10 years.

And that´s with mostly nonhostile natives.

hanuman wrote:Within just a few decades from the founding of the first successful European colonies in North America, Europeans had acquired population equity with the Native American populations in their immediate surrounds

"in their immediate surrounds"... Great way of counting.

And of skipping past what years you´re actually talking about. You´re not in the 17th century any longer at least.

hanuman wrote:and by the time the last of the thirteen colonies were formally proclaimed, European numbers were FAR greater than the Native American populations within each of the colonies

Again a completely useless comparison.

In real world history, natives were neutral or friendly well over 90% of the time.

And like i noted above, when they were hostile, less than 1 colony in 20 survived. And of those that survived, many were still abandoned as untenable.

And those that lived on, usually did so after striking some kind of deal with the natives.

Sorry, but your cavalier dismissal of the dirty savages is extremely unrealistic.

I never said they could stop European colonisation completely or forever, but again, if forewarned, there are going to be a lot of tribes that will bury their own grievances and cooperate, mostly not over large regions, but locally and sometimes regionally, that is guaranteed( because it did happen later, once they historically found out just how treacherous European invaders were).

And that will create a lot of areas that will be suicidal for colonisation, and just about everywhere will be more difficult as the natives will be more likely to annihilate a settlement and take what´s left, rather than trade with the settlers.

Even if we were to just cause a change that moves from 90% of natives trading with settlers, to 10%, that alone will cause 50-60% of historically successful colonies to die out in their first 5 years.

Raise the amount of natives being hostile from 10 to 30%(very realistic and conservative), and you kill off at least half the rest during the 17th century.

And then the part you keep ignoring, the reduction in successful colonies reduces the chance of success for additional colonies and especially for inland colonisation.

Also, you ignore what USE will cause in Europe, new tech is causing wars(killing off people), and improving overall living conditions, including food supplies. So no, there will definitely not be an identical colonisation even if noone bothers to alert the natives about what´s about to happen.

Tenshinai, we might have engaged in a very interesting and informative academic discussion, and I rather enjoyed it, but no longer.

History in the real world had conclusively proven that it takes more than just putting guns in a native population's hands to enable them to successfully resist European encroachment. In this, my position is clearly supported by historical fact.

At no point did I call Native Americans "dirty savages". The fact that you accuse me of doing such a deplorable thing, is indicative of the weakness of YOUR argument, not mine.

Not being able to match the organisational sophistication, population levels and technological development of historical European nations does not make anyone a 'savage'. ALL it means is that their own societies had started on the very long journey to such a level of development at a much later time than happened in Europe.

From my side, this is the end of the discussion. I find your accusation offensive and insulting. Thank you.

hanuman wrote:From my side, this is the end of the discussion. I find your accusation offensive and insulting. Thank you.

No accusation what so ever, it was meant as descriptive, as you essentially assumed that no matter what, history could only go one way.

And that simply isn´t true. Ie., you were effectively denigrating the impact the natives EVER COULD HAVE.

Despite plenty of evidence that that is complete bullshit.

hanuman wrote:Not being able to match the organisational sophistication, population levels and technological development of historical European nations does not make anyone a 'savage'. ALL it means is that their own societies had started on the very long journey to such a level of development at a much later time than happened in Europe.

Ah, so you assume that development is linear then, well that´s a pity. It isn´t.

Do consider the viking era for example will you?

The vikings were extremely inferior in numbers, had generally inferior technology (essentially only excepting ships and probably navigation skills at least to some extent) and so on, yet they still raided, even took over cultures that were clearly and blatantly more developed.

hanuman wrote:History in the real world had conclusively proven that it takes more than just putting guns in a native population's hands to enable them to successfully resist European encroachment.

Who said anything about putting guns their hands? That would be bloody stupid. That would actually make them less effective.

Knowledge, giving them incentive to ACT, that is what could make a difference.

Or maybe you don´t want to admit that most colonies were fragile beyond belief, often reducing settlers to begging for food from nearby natives before they could aquire enough food on their own, which usually took a few years.

Let´s repeat shall we?

About half of colonies that DID get help from natives, still died out.

>4/5 colonies lacking trade with natives, died out.

>19/20 colonies facing hostile natives died out.

It was fairly normal for a colony to loose 4/5ths of it´s people in the first 5 years, even WITHOUT hostile natives.

Even with 90% of natives friendly or neutral, over 2/3rds of historical colonies still DIED OUT.

Do the maths! If the majority of natives fight the settlements, only the most wellprotected and EXPENSIVE colonies will live on, and not even all of them(because hey, even historically, BIG settlements that got thousands of soldiers sent with them, even some of those died out, even without native warfare).

So no, historical facts most certainly does not support your blanket statements about how "what the natives does will make no difference".